A bank that does not recognize the difference between the above two transactions is simply telling us that our money is subject to illegal offset and there is clearly no justification for that.
The failure to recognize the difference between a deposit and a withdrawal sounds preposterous, but this banker acts like your deposit your money is his for the taking. Why does the bank act like every deposit is a self-cancelling transaction. Again, this is very difficult to believe without listening to this banker explain it.
What should the remedy be if the bank steals your money in the voodoo accounting manner that the above banker uses to justify an $1188 theft? Post a message right here because if the bank gets away with this gimmick, is anybody's money really safe?
What the bank has in effect done is manufacture total nonsense to justify an illegal offset, and if that becomes a precedent, it is much safer to keep your money under your pillow rather than in the hands of people who think that your money is theirs for the taking.
The bottom line is very simple. The Plaintiffs deposited 1188 dollars in THEIR chequing account to pay the bill in question, and their Bank Statement is very clear.
Moreover, the February 22nd 2012 withdrawl for 1188 dollars should have been applied to the following invoice that the Bank stamped PAID on February 22nd 2012.
The Banks forever changing explanations for failing to pay the above invoice are as ludicrous as the above Bank Managers' voodoo accounting standards and it's time to accept the simple truth and to move on. The problem however is that Banks in Ontario have evidently corrupted the entire judicial process and all you have to do is to read this, to get it.
This is how the customer entered the Bank on February 22, 2012.
The path of entry is clear. This is what the video surveillance entry would have looked like if there was no tampering.
The Banks' version of customer entry happens at frame #93 of the 362 frame surveillance clip.
Needless to say, the surveillance tape has been tampered with because the blue square is where the customers feet should be in the surveillance tape entry shot as the "entrance footprints" clearly indicate and the red square is where they were actually positioned as the frame # 93 of the Banks' surveillance tape clearly proves.
It is consequently not possible to deny the fact that BNS video pranksters altered the Banks' surveillance video in attempt to conceal an 1188 dollar cash deposit.
Note the final 9 frames of the Bank's video surveillance clip.
Some interesting observations: Frame #363 is excluded from the surveillance video and frame #93 the 1st clip of the surveillance video looks more like the authentic last rather than the entrance frame. Moreover, frame #355 looks like the customer is pushing the invoice in question towards the teller and looks like one of many frames that are out of sequence.
Read about the trial this mess has generated.
Next: Wake up America: Tea Party Rovers are trying to orchestrate another, "too controversial to call" election.
Latest comeback: Advanced Yoga